Clearlake commission reviews native tree protection ordinance, questions mitigation fee and enforcement

The Clearlake Planning Commission on Oct. 22 reviewed the city’s native tree protection ordinance (Section 18-40), discussing which species are protected, removal exemptions, mitigation requirements and enforcement.

Planning staff summarized the ordinance sections: a zoning permit is required to remove qualifying native trees (most oaks and other specified species over a six‑inch DBH threshold), the city may require on‑site replacement (commonly at a 2:1 ratio) or payment of an off‑site mitigation fee set by the city council, and penalties for unauthorized removal can be an infraction or misdemeanor with fines (staff cited fines up to $1,000 per violation). Exemptions include hazardous trees, trees that threaten electric lines as determined by utilities (citing Public Resources Code 4293), trees required to be removed for city or utility public improvements, and trees within the drip line of a proposed house, garage or driveway that cannot reasonably be avoided.

Commissioner Stewart asked about the tree mitigation fund and whether the current $600-per‑tree fee covers replacement or the ecological services lost when large oaks are removed. Planning staff said the fund balance is "a little under a hundred thousand dollars" and recounted a past project at Anderson Marsh State Park in which the city spent roughly $35,000–$40,000 to plant about 100 trees (including irrigation and establishment costs). Staff noted that smaller trees often have higher survivability and that the city has not yet identified multiple project sites within the city that are ready for large‑scale planting.

Sally, chair of the local Sierra Club chapter, told the commission that $600 does not adequately replace the ecological services provided by large, mature trees and urged consistent enforcement and clearer permitting guidance for residents seeking arborist review. Staff said the city has taken enforcement action in recent weeks on unauthorized removals and is open to working with community groups on mitigation strategies, including conservation easements or a joint steering committee to explore options.

Commissioners and staff also discussed the potential effects of forthcoming CAL FIRE remapping and insurance‑industry responses: staff said statewide remapping will likely identify more areas as very‑high fire‑hazard zones and that new mapping and regulations could force additional tree‑management work and complicate long‑term planting or canopy goals. The commission did not change the ordinance language at the meeting but asked staff to continue working with interested community groups and to consider next‑step options.